Re: virus: Do we live in a simulated universe?

From: athe nonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 02:44:50 MDT

  • Next message: Kharin: "virus: Re:Dawkins: The future looks bright"

    hehe, rather interesting....
    i especially like the references to Schrodinger's Cat (a discordian
    style book) and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal...
    i don't think that i've really heard those angel before...
    very creative way of making someone question reality as we know it...

    i salute you with a rubber chicken! (cliche, but classic)
    -athenonrex

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    #############################################
    #~every villan is the hero of his own story~#
    #############################################
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    --- Walter Watts <wlwatts@cox.net> wrote:
    >The following post from Eric Boyd is almost 3 years old. 10/2000 was the
    >original post. It's still a beaut.
    >
    >Hey Eric, say Hi once in a while.......
    >
    >Walter
    >-------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >Dear Church of Virus,
    >
    >Thought I'd pass along a little thought project that I acquired in Palo
    >Alto, from none other than Marvin Minsky...
    >
    >Do we live in a simulated universe?
    >
    >If we did, what should we expect to see? Are there any tell tale signs
    >that might give its simulated nature away?
    >
    >Well, for one, a simulated universe should have limits to the precision
    >that the calculations contain; i.e. there should be a least significant
    >digit. There should also be a biggest number, where the chosen variable
    >type maxes out... Finally, to save CPU cycles, there should be shortcuts
    >and optimizations -- the programmers don't want to have to sim
    >everything (that's expensive), only the necessary things.
    >
    >Now here's the scary part... doesn't Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
    >and quantization in general look an awful lot like a least significant
    >digit -- a "truncation error" in the math of the universe? And doesn't
    >special relativity's limit on the speed of light look specifically
    >designed to avoid overflow errors? (you can't reach the biggest number
    >because the closer you get the harder it becomes to get closer...) And
    >the cincher -- the whole issue of Schrodinger's Cat, and the
    >indeterminacy of quantum events, looks suspiciously like a shortcut
    >-- why sim the cat when you can just wait and then evaluate a simple
    >probability function when somebody looks? In short, the laws of physics
    >as we know them seem to have certain features which would make the
    >simulation of our universe a lot easier than one might a-priori
    >expect...
    >
    >It's not proof, of course, but it does get you thinking... if we are
    >simulated, what do you suppose the purpose of the simulation is?
    >
    >Here's an interesting idea that I got from an astrophysics friend of
    >mine -- we could test if our universe is simulated by simulating a
    >universe ourselves. Basically, whatever hardware it is that does the
    >simulating at the top level has to be limited -- and if we can break
    >that limit, our own universe will either have "brown outs" -- which we
    >could observe -- or we'd simply crash (that being very bad). To prevent
    >this, I'm betting that the sys admins would simply prevent our simulated
    >universe from actually running; so our inability to sim our universe
    >despite the fact that it seems to be doable would be evidence that we
    >are ourselves simulations.
    >
    >Here's an interesting thought: we might conceivably reach the CPU limit
    >even without a project so bold as a universe simulation. Any bets on how
    >many humans and/or computers would be required to give The Machine a run
    >for it's money? Maybe we should limit human numbers to avoid stressing
    >the hardware of the universe... <laughs>
    >
    >----- Eric Boyd
    >eric@javien.com
    >http://www.lucifer.com/~eboyd/
    >When we take things for granted, we take them away from *ourselves*
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >
    >Walter Watts
    >Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
    >
    >"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
    >partner spayed or neutered."
    >
    >
    >---
    >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

    _____________________________________________________________
    --->Get your free email @godisdead.com
    Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine

    _____________________________________________________________
    Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com, No Ads, 6MB, IMAP, POP, SMTP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 02:47:22 MDT